China accused of stealing British aircraft design
Beijing's embassy in London has denied that either the design or the aircraft itself was stolen.
Alicia Kearns, the shadow national security minister, told The Telegraph: 'We outright condemn the shameless theft of the iconic British Islander aircraft design by a Chinese-state company, and the industrialised nature of intellectual property theft by the Chinese Communist Party.
'Global trade relies on respect for the rule of law. China's economic model is based on intellectual property theft, currency manipulation, state subsidy and the dumping of artificially cheap products to suffocate industries in the UK and those of allied economies.'
China's threat to Western prosperity has been confronted by British officials, albeit sluggishly.
In July 2022, the heads of the UK and US security services made an unprecedented joint public appearance to warn of the threat from Beijing.
MI5 chief Ken McCallum said at the time that his service had more than doubled its work against Chinese activity in the last three years and would be doubling it again.
'Take the threat from China seriously'
Ms Kearns added: 'The Labour Party claims to be the party of British workers. If this claim has any validity, they would do well to start taking the threat from China seriously, call out and act on this theft, and build on the protections we put in place across business and academia to stop the theft of British designs and products – including putting China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme (FIRS), which the Government failed to do again only yesterday.'
Labour has so far ignored calls to place China on the top level of the Government's new FIRS.
Tuesday saw Russia added to the scheme, joining the likes of Iran, but so far ministers have failed to place China on the 'enhanced' tier.
China's apparent targeting of the Islander aircraft represents a swipe at one of the crown jewels of the British aerospace industry.
Marketed as 'the world's most versatile aircraft', the Islander design was first drawn up in 1965 after Britten-Norman spotted a niche in the market for a light passenger and cargo transport aircraft.
It has been in continuous production for more than half a century, being bought by airlines and governments alike in more than 50 countries.
'We are investigating'
A spokesman for the British aircraft manufacturer said: 'Britten-Norman is aware of a UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] currently undergoing testing that bears a striking resemblance to our BN-2T Islander aircraft, including unique design elements specific to our product.
'The Islander is a globally renowned, iconic airframe and this UAV does not have our endorsement.
'We have already developed and produced our own cargo variant and we are actively exploring autonomous capabilities.
'The situation raises concerns regarding potential misuse of our intellectual property, which we are investigating to determine if any rights have been violated and whether further action is required to protect the Islander's iconic design.'
'No solid evidence'
Kai Yan, a Chinese embassy spokesman, claimed there was no 'solid evidence' that Yi-Tong UAV System Co Ltd had stolen Britten-Norman's intellectual property or had tried to pass off a genuine Islander as its own product.
'The Chinese government is committed to protecting intellectual property rights. We are firmly against any allegations of IP infringement that are not based on solid evidence,' said Yan.
'Technological innovation in China has come a long way, a result of both the hard work of Chinese scientists and businesses and international collaboration.
'China's scientific and technological advancement cannot be held back by some groundless and unfair allegations.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
British Gas boss warns Miliband against ‘outrageous' energy bill divide
Forcing households with gas boilers to pay higher green taxes than those with heat pumps would be an 'abomination', the boss of British Gas has warned. In a stark warning to Ed Miliband, Chris O'Shea said that removing net zero levies from electricity bills would punish the poor and amount to a 'terrible distortion of the market'. It comes amid reports that the Energy Secretary is considering stripping green levies from electricity in a bid to encourage the adoption of heat pumps. Instead, the costs would be moved on to gas, making a boiler more expensive to run. Mr O'Shea, the chief executive of British Gas owner Centrica, warned Mr Miliband to resist such an 'outrageous' overhaul and instead focus on protecting billpayers from the soaring cost of net zero. 'It's a preposterous idea,' Mr O'Shea told The Telegraph. 'The idea you'd put the levies on gas bills will mean those better-off people with heat pumps will be subsidised by those poorer people with gas boilers. That's nonsense. 'I think those of us with the broadest shoulders should help those of us who have the most need. 'To put them on gas bills would be an abomination, outrageous and a terrible distortion of the market. It would also be unfair because the people [who have] gas boilers the longest will also be those who can least afford to pay higher bills. 'I have heard the argument that it will encourage more people to use electricity. But encouraging people to use subsidised electricity by forcing gas users to pay just doesn't make any sense.' Mr O'Shea said the Government should shift the cost of green levies on to general taxation rather than creating an energy bill divide between households. 'Hostage to fortune' The Climate Change Committee, a Government quango, has urged Mr Miliband to remove the taxes from electricity bills to encourage more people to buy heat pumps and electric cars. However, experts have warned such a move risks increasing the average gas bill by £120 a year. Mr Miliband is considering the reforms as part of a radical rethink on clean power, as he fights to defend Britain's goal of reaching net zero by 2050. An announcement is expected this autumn. Mr O'Shea's plea to protect households with gas boilers came as he warned that Mr Miliband's net zero targets would be challenging. 'I don't think they are a work of fiction, and it's good that we have stretching targets,' he said. 'But even if you were to speak to those who helped to set them, then even they would say it will be difficult. But I don't think it's impossible.' The Centrica boss also cast doubt over Mr Miliband's pledge to cut household energy bills by 2030, supposedly aided by Britain's move to a greener economy. Mr O'Shea said he was sceptical that the Energy Secretary's promise to lower bills by £300 this parliament was 'achievable'. 'The energy transition is not cheap and it is not simple,' said Mr O'Shea. 'If it were, then we would have done it already. He urged the Government to take a more honest approach when it came to net zero. 'What renewables will do is give you more price stability,' he said. 'You will get fewer highs and fewer lows. Home-grown renewables give you more security than imported gas. 'But I wouldn't have made the £300 statement because it makes you a hostage to fortune.' As Britain's second-largest energy supplier behind rival Octopus, Centrica takes an 'agnostic' view when it comes to net zero, according to Mr O'Shea. That means the company is as comfortable building gas-fired power stations as it is investing in heat pumps. However, he said the business has abandoned wind and solar investments in the UK because they do not make enough money. Instead, Centrica is exploring wind investments in Ireland. Mr O'Shea was also critical of Mr Miliband's pledge to ban all new drilling in the North Sea, even though Centrica no longer conducts any exploration activity in the basin. 'I don't agree with the decision,' he said. 'If you take it from an environmental point of view, we import LNG [liquefied natural gas]. 'If you produce gas domestically, then it will have a lower carbon content than the LNG that we import. And the reason is the cost of shipping and the cost of turning the gas into a liquid.' Zonal pricing row By taking a less fiercely aggressive approach on net zero, Mr O'Shea has set himself apart from Greg Jackson, his counterpart at Octopus, who has made a virtue of being a clean-energy champion. This distinction came to the fore in recent months amid the fierce debate over zonal pricing. Unlike British Gas, Mr Jackson was a vocal supporter of plans to divide up the country into different energy pricing zones in an effort to incentivise developers to build wind and solar farms where demand – and prices – are highest. However, the proposals were highly controversial because they would have in practice meant higher bills in the South for electricity than in the North. 'It has been a very divisive debate,' said Mr O'Shea. 'We did not want a postcode lottery.' Mr Miliband recently abandoned the proposal, which British Gas believes was the right decision. Octopus disagrees and claims the Energy Secretary missed a vital opportunity to lower bills by billions of pounds. Mr O'Shea said: 'There was one very, very vocal proponent of it, and I think the benefits were all quite theoretical. 'For a company that purports to put the customer first, I don't know why they would want a system that would be more complex. I think they missed the point. 'I don't know why they went so hard on it and why they were so vicious about the Government's decision. One of their guys made a post on social media saying 'good game, well played'. This is not a game. People are struggling to pay their energy bills. 'I think that a lot of things have become too polarised. And energy is no different.' Rough decisions Now that the battle over zonal pricing is over, Centrica is turning its attention to Rough, the gas storage facility it runs 18 miles off the coast of East Yorkshire. It accounts for about half of the capacity the UK has to store gas. However, Mr O'Shea has warned that Rough risks closure by the end of the year unless ministers agree to help fund the site's redevelopment. 'Rough is going to lose about £100m this year and we can't sustain that,' he said. 'I think we have probably got to see something by the end of this year. 'If we get towards the end of the year and we've got a situation whereby we've got no prospect of making a profit, then we're just throwing good money after bad. It would be like a charitable donation, and that's not our business.' Rather than securing a handout, Centrica has asked ministers for a so-called cap and floor mechanism to help transform the 40-year-old site to store hydrogen as well as natural gas. This would provide a guaranteed minimum revenue level for the project - the floor – as well as limited excessive profits – the cap. Centrica has already stopped filling the facility amid mounting losses. Mr O'Shea said a full closure would involve the loss of hundreds of jobs. As well as impacting the local community, such a move threatens to deal a hammer blow to Britain's energy security, just years after the country recovered from one of its worst-ever energy crises following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Worse still, it also sends the wrong message to our allies in Europe, according to Mr O'Shea. 'If Rough closes, then the UK has just six days of gas storage available, compared to 100 in France, Netherlands and Germany. 'If we get into a crisis and the UK hasn't invested in gas storage, then I am not sure it will flow from the Continent. 'Politically, if you're the prime minister of France or Germany and you look at a country that hasn't invested in gas storage, then I am not sure that will work. There is a need for us to recognise the risk that no one likes a freeloader.'
Powys County Times
2 hours ago
- Powys County Times
NHS managers who silence whistleblowers to be banned from senior health roles
NHS managers who silence whistleblowers will be banned from taking up other senior health service roles, the Government has announced. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) said the proposals will ensure those who commit serious misconduct are no longer able to work in senior NHS management positions. Legislation is set to be put forward to Parliament next year to introduce professional standards and regulation of NHS managers. Tens of thousands of clinical and non-clinical managers work in the NHS but there is currently no regulatory framework specifically for managers, as there is for doctors and nurses. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the reforms will 'slam the door in the face of unsuitable managers'. Mr Streeting added: 'I'm determined to create a culture of honesty and openness in the NHS where whistleblowers are protected, and that demands tough enforcement. 'If you silence whistleblowers, you will never work in the NHS again. 'We've got to create the conditions where staff are free to come forward and sound the alarm when things go wrong. Protecting the reputation of the NHS should never be put before protecting patient safety. 'Most NHS leaders are doing a fantastic job, but we need to stop the revolving door that allows managers sacked for misconduct or incompetence to be quietly moved to another well-paid role in another part of the NHS.' DHSC said a public consultation launched in November last year received more than 4,900 contributions on ways in which managers and leaders could be regulated. The statutory barring system will be for board-level directors and their direct reports within NHS bodies. Further legislation will set out new statutory powers for the Health and Care Professions Council to disbar NHS leaders in senior roles who have committed serious misconduct. Separate NHS England professional standards for managers will establish a 'consistent, national set of expectations about NHS management and leadership competency and conduct', DHSC said. Tom Kark KC, author of the Kark Review into the effectiveness of the fit and proper person test within the NHS, said: 'I am pleased that the recommendation made in my report into the application of the NHS fit and proper person test to create a power to disqualify board directors found guilty of serious misconduct is being implemented. 'Along with the ongoing implementation of my other recommendations for improving board competence, this is a positive move to strengthen management in the NHS by weeding out poor leadership. 'This is good news for whistleblowers and those looking for accountability in senior management which has long been lacking.' Rachel Power, chief executive of the Patients Association, said patients expect NHS managers 'to be held to the same high standards as clinical staff, and that should include consistent regulation'. Ms Power added: 'A clear, fair process to prevent those who commit serious misconduct from returning to senior roles will be an important step forward, and it's vital that patient involvement continues to shape proposals as further regulation is considered.' Saffron Cordery, deputy chief executive of NHS Providers, said the membership organisation for hospital, mental health, community and ambulance services thought 'only 'fit and proper' people should be running NHS services'. Ms Cordery added: 'Many big, complex NHS trusts employ thousands of people therefore we want to attract the very best to lead them. 'So we welcome the Government's commitment to developing and accrediting managers alongside proposals for disbarring those whose performance falls short.' Sam Allen, NHS national director for leadership and management, said: 'Managers will welcome this new regulatory framework, as part of the broader package of actions set out in the plan to attract, develop, and retain the best possible leaders for the NHS of today and tomorrow.'
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
I pored over John Swinney's strategy – here's what we must do now
Swinney started with a declaration of intent: 'Scotland's interests are best served only when Scotland's future is in Scotland's hands. Our nation will only fully flourish when the people of Scotland are in charge of our own destiny with independence.' He then went on to make his own personal case, arguing that he had 'steadied the ship', and that he had been able to 'restore the credibility of my party and my Government so that we could make – and importantly win – the argument for Scottish independence'. Looking at the polls, this is largely true, and Swinney is right to make the claim that under his leadership the SNP, over the past 12 months, have won 13 local government by-elections – a big shift after a 20-month period without a single victory. However, the irony is that they have achieved this by attempting to tackle the cost of living crisis, rather than focusing on independence. Swinney is right to assert the claim that: 'We restored Winter Fuel Payments for Scotland's pensioners when Labour chose to scrap them. We are taking bold action on child poverty by lifting the cruel two-child cap that pushes thousands of children into poverty – a decision which been welcomed by every anti-poverty charity in the country and which Labour, to their shame, have failed to take at a UK level.' But on other matters, the SNP's claims to be 'tackling the cost of living crisis' seem a lot weaker. For example, Swinney claims that: 'We are offering solutions to the ongoing cost of living crisis – with new policies such as the removal of peak fares on our railways. Our cost of living guarantee delivers savings for Scots that aren't available elsewhere. From council tax that is 30% lower than in England, or water bills 20% lower, or no charges for essentials like prescriptions.' But the big-ticket items, like housing and energy bills, are absent, and only this month the SNP missed a huge opportunity to back zonal energy pricing. The SNP's housing policy has made no dent in the massive urban and rural housing crisis. Swinney has steadied the ship but it is still taking water, and the sextant, compass and maps are all gone. But the point of all of this is to manage a range of constituencies, tribes and demographics, to ensure electoral survival and persuade people that, somehow, the SNP are still the only show in town and the best vehicle to achieve independence, and/or govern a pre-independent Scotland more competently than anyone else. In some ways, this is an impossible task. In other ways, this is a low bar. On the one hand, Swinney needs to manage this transition while operating within the fiscal restraints of devolution, with an overwhelmingly hostile media around him and with severe and vocal dissent from within the nationalist movement. This makes the task one that is just immersed in hostility and negativity. On the other hand, he is faced with opponents and opposition so abject and hopeless that it makes the SNP rise, Lazarus-like, over and over. Swinney has a dual task: to speak to those who want (and need) good governance and those who want movement-building. He is far better at the first than the second. His strategy, such as it is, is broadly to (re) build trust, then build an unstoppable coalition amid the rubble and decay of the debris of Late Britain for an independent Scotland. I would like to take this opportunity to examine this approach and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses. Building a Coalition for Yes TO his credit, Swinney shows some humility saying: 'Our renewed unity and sense of purpose is clear for all to see, and that too is giving people confidence once again in the [[SNP]], as the leading advocates of Scottish independence. Some good and necessary first steps have been taken, but they have only brought us to the starting line.' Rather grandly, he writes: 'We are on the precipice of a new global age and that demands a bold new path for Scotland.' I don't really know what that actually means? Speaking to the opposition, he writes: 'Others speak glibly of a new direction or for the need for reform, but the change Scotland needs is more fundamental', before declaring: 'To meet the challenges of this new age, we need a Scotland that is reborn.' We do. He continues to lay out his case, arguing: 'Last time, many people gave the UK the benefit of the doubt, many believing that an incoming Labour government might put things right. But an incoming Labour government has only made things worse. 'The evidence is staring us in the face: Westminster is not working for Scotland. Life is just too difficult for too many and the UK is incapable of providing the required, essential boost to living standards.' This is self-evident, though worth re-stating, but this is where the cracks in the argument begin to emerge. At no point in this new declaration do the SNP show the intent, the resolve or the track record to offer a genuinely radical economic alternative to the neoliberalism of Labour/Conservative rule. What they have shown is some ameliorative polices to try to counter the most regressive impact of being in the Union. But that's not enough. Without many specifics, Swinney argues: 'It's therefore time for the people of Scotland to take our future into our own hands, so that we can ensure our vast energy wealth delivers tangible benefits for our people, including lower household energy bills and a more competitive business environment. So that we can create a dynamic, internationally connected economy, ensuring opportunities for all in an economy that works for all.' This is, in the words of Jonathon Shafi, 'Word Soup'. Having set out his stall, the First Minister then attempts to lay out his pathway to independence. He says: 'We have to challenge the democratic outrage that Westminster – right now – refuses to acknowledge Scotland's right to determine her own future. 'We demonstrated in 2014 that an agreed democratic referendum is the correct means to bring about that independence. And have no doubt, such a democratic, constitutional approach is necessary if our independence is to achieve domestic and international legitimacy. Something that is essential if we are to receive international recognition and a smooth return to membership of the EU.' These words, this plan, are the dividing line between those in the Yes movement, who want a new plan, a new direction, and Swinney's calculation that this is the route to take the majority of Scotland with him. The Plan SWINNEY lays out his ideas very clearly, saying: 'First, it will be a campaign designed to build the highest levels of support possible for independence as the best future for Scotland. 'I will be saying to those who voted Yes in 2014, and who have become independence supporters in the years since, that what they believed in then is just as valid today. 'They saw that Britain was fundamentally broken, that Westminster couldn't deliver on their dreams and aspirations, and what they saw has come to pass. And now it is time to do something about it. 'But I will also be urging people who were not persuaded of the merits of independence in 2014 to see the state of Britain today and take a different view.' This is all good and shouldn't be disputed by anybody. Who doesn't want to build mass support for independence? The problem, as we'll go on to in a moment, is the lack of detail, ideas or strategy on how to make that happen and to navigate the many contradictions and challenges that it entails. He continues: 'Second, that means building public pressure around Scotland's fundamental national rights. The UK parties speak of a partnership of equals, but those are empty words if Scotland does not have the ability to determine her own future. 'We are ready to turn the heat up on Westminster and its anti-democratic stance, mobilising the support, energy and the impetus of people in Scotland behind the simple idea: no ifs, no buts, Scotland has the right to choose.' This is good, and he's quite right to lay out the basic anti-democratic nature of the British state's 'offering' to Scotland. But again, the problem is the lack of detail, ideas or strategy. There may be more to come but if there was, why not lay it out here? Finally , the First Minister concludes: 'And third, I want to persuade independence supporters that the way to deliver independence is only with an emphatic SNP win in 2026 and the priority is to do that now. History tells us that only when the SNP are doing well is there any prospect of advancing on Scotland's constitutional cause. 'During the next parliament, we reach the point where there will be one million people eligible to vote who, last time around, were too young to do so or not even born. A generation has now clearly passed. 'It's time for the one change that will actually make a difference for Scotland, for the fresh start our nation needs so badly. It's time for Scotland to craft her destiny by ensuring Scotland's future is in the hands of the people of Scotland.' To be fair, framing the SNP as a 'fresh start' after 18 years in power is pretty gallus, but there is something among all of this which shines out, and which could be the centrepoint of a more dynamic strategy. Future Focused MUCH of the dismay about being trapped within the Union is the overwhelming sense of decay and decline that pervades late Britain. If this feeling reached its apogee at the death of the monarch, it can be seen daily in the appointment of ridiculous people to the House of Lords, the overarching power of the government within [[Westminster]] (as witnessed by the actions of Keir Starmer's whips' office against his own party last week) or the immersive deference inculcated by being subjects of a monarch in the 21st century. The feeling of being trapped in an ancient regime that is unreformable and corrupt at its core is overwhelming and debilitating. Beyond this fusion of cronyism and decay, though, is the reality of collapsing living standards, grotesque social inequality and elite grandeur. The response is a populist movement of the far-right that eulogises a mythical past. In among the platitudes and the normcore of Swinney's 'plan', there is an opportunity to really contrast this backward-looking Ruritania, this Britain of fossils and past-glories and relics of Empire. Countless commentators have remarked on how difficult it has become for anyone to 'imagine a better future' in timelines that seem dark and economic systems that seem all-pervasive. There is a glaring opportunity for the case to be made for a new Scotland to really address the multiple problems facing not just young people but future generations – and for this case to be made by framing Scottish independence as a future-facing project in stark contrast to broken Britain. What would that look like? It would mean really taking on the multiple problems faced by younger (and future) generations, which have been a dark inheritance passed on to them. A mammoth, impossible task? Yes, but one worth trying. Where to start? I would start with the crisis of affordable housing which is life-altering for millions of people. I would face the existential crisis of climate breakdown and create deep and radical action plans that would give hope and meaning for a liveable future. I would create the outline of what an 'ethical foreign policy' (to use Robin Cook's words) would look like for a future Scotland. I would begin to meaningfully address the crisis of social alienation and the epidemic of loneliness and mental health that has spooled out of lockdown, late capitalist anomie and digital culture, and particularly affects younger people. If these seem ridiculous, impossible or utopian ideas, that's OK. In such dark times, we need to imagine a better future beyond the confines of today. As the political philosopher Murray Bookchin said: 'The assumption that what currently exists must necessarily exist is the acid that corrodes all visionary thinking.' Framing an independent Scotland as a project for future generations would be a reset for the entire independence movement, and would require a complete overhaul of thinking. But somehow, somewhat improbably, Swinney has stumbled on an idea: "During the next parliament, we reach the point where there will be one million people eligible to vote who, last time around, were too young to do so or not even born. A generation has now clearly passed.' This has two consequences. First, we begin to sweep aside the fragile excuse that the Unionist community has hidden behind for repressing basic democracy in holding up the phrase 'for a generation' and assert that that time has passed. Second, we go to, engage with and inspire the generation that are now eligible to vote, and who are overwhelmingly pro-independence. To do this properly, and to begin to explore the generational issues I touched on, would require a break from 2014 and an effort to re-imagine the case for independence in a much more expansive timeframe. This wouldn't be another 'campaign' with slogans and attack lines, it wouldn't be a politics of resentment, it would be a politics of imagination and possibility. That Britain is in a morbid state is plain for anyone to see, but that must be contrasted with a movement that offers not just a constitutional off-ramp but an alternative to the politics of fear and resentment that activates the populist right. In this sense, we need to rethink the case for independence and recast it entirely. In the words of Marshall McLuhan: 'Most of our assumptions have outlived their uselessness.' Remaining in this Union means being engaged in the 'slow cancellation of the future'. For Scotland to be 'reborn' demands that we step out of that paradigm and away from the hyper-nostalgia and denialism that characterises the most regressive elements of British and American nationalism.
